Preventive detention pre-service interference is exceptional, while customs confiscation disputes generally follow the statutory remedy route.

Pre-execution interference with a preventive detention order under COFEPOSA is limited to exceptional cases: a writ court will ordinarily not restrain service of the order unless it is shown to be wholly unsupported by material, ab initio void, mala fide, or arbitrary. On the stated record, including recovery-linked material and non-compliance with summons, the text indicates the case did not meet that narrow threshold. It also states that writ interference with seizure and proposed confiscation of cash was declined because the petitioner had a statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act and had not exhausted it, so the customs process was left to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ court should interfere under Article 226 to restrain service of a preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act before the order is served and detention takes place. (ii) Whether the court should interfere with the seizure and proposed confiscation of the cash amount of Rs. 27,180 in the absence of exhaustion of the statutory remedy under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether a writ court should interfere under Article 226 to restrain service of a preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act before the order is served and detention takes place.

Analysis: Pre-execution interference with a preventive detention order is confined to exceptional cases. The governing principle is that the writ court should ordinarily not obstruct a detention order before service and detention, because preventive detention operates on the basis of subjective satisfaction and not on proof of guilt. Interference is justified only where there is no material whatsoever, or where the order is shown to be ab initio void, mala fide, or wholly arbitrary. On the materials referred to in the record, including recovery of gold-related articles, statements linking the petitioner with smuggled gold, and non-compliance with summons, the case did not fall within that narrow exceptional category.

Conclusion: Interference was refused, and the challenge to the preventive detention order failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the court should interfere with the seizure and proposed confiscation of the cash amount of Rs. 27,180 in the absence of exhaustion of the statutory remedy under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The seizure and confiscation proceedings were left to the statutory authorities. The petitioner had an appellate remedy against the confiscation order and had not obtained any stay of the proceedings. The summons under the Customs Act, 1962 was not found to be invalid, and the court declined to short-circuit the statutory process in writ jurisdiction when the matter could be pursued under the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: No writ interference was warranted in respect of the seized cash and confiscation proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit for intervention at the pre-service stage of preventive detention and the fiscal seizure dispute was also left to the statutory remedy, so the application failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-execution interference with preventive detention is permissible only in exceptional cases where the detention order is shown to be wholly unsupported by material or ab initio void, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not supplant the statutory remedy in customs confiscation matters.

---